VH 1: The End

[Ryan]

Up to Stalinverse, and I'd say that, more than not, Dinesh adhered fairly well to the overall intent and spirit of VALIANT/VH-1.

Up to Stalinverse, so 2012-2017, the first 5 years. There's been 7 years of comics since then that all 'count'. That's like only having read VH1 to mid-1992.

I agree that it felt like VH1 because they used a lot of the same plot lines. But how do you explain things like Deadside and magic in 'the world outside our window' Because they don't really try to. Much more like Marvel/DC than VH1.

Oh, I know this one! Microcircuitry!

Is that like midichlorians? No seriously I didn't know VEI tried to explain any of their magic in a unified way.

Still reads much more like 2000s era Marvel Knights than the New Universe.

[ManofTheAtom]

A retcon for who Ax killed is necessary for Bloodshot because the alternative is to pretend BS #51 didn't happen, which isn't really an option. Additionally, it resolves the plot hole of why his blood earned the moniker "Blood of Heroes" when no one else other than him used it.

In this instance, a retcon solves a problem, it doesn't create it.

Whatever floats your boat. Same can be said for other retcons from other peoples' POV.

Up to Stalinverse, and I'd say that, more than not, Dinesh adhered fairly well to the overall intent and spirit of VALIANT/VH-1.

Up to Stalinverse, so 2012-2017, the first 5 years. There's been 7 years of comics since then that all 'count'. That's like only having read VH1 to mid-1992.

I agree that it felt like VH1 because they used a lot of the same plot lines. But how do you explain things like Deadside and magic in 'the world outside our window' Because they don't really try to. Much more like Marvel/DC than VH1.

So, one of the things I did for VEI was research afterlives in voodoo mythology and the like. I'm not sure how much of what I put together they ended up using, though.

As for how to explain it, Deadside could be merely another plane not unlike the Faraway in VEI or Lost Land in VH-1, while the reason why the souls of the dead travel there remains unexplained (might be another piece of advanced technology like the Boon).

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

[Ryan]

A retcon for who Ax killed is necessary for Bloodshot because the alternative is to pretend BS #51 didn't happen, which isn't really an option. Additionally, it resolves the plot hole of why his blood earned the moniker "Blood of Heroes" when no one else other than him used it.

In this instance, a retcon solves a problem, it doesn't create it.

Whatever floats your boat. Same can be said for other retcons from other peoples' POV.

Up to Stalinverse, and I'd say that, more than not, Dinesh adhered fairly well to the overall intent and spirit of VALIANT/VH-1.

Up to Stalinverse, so 2012-2017, the first 5 years. There's been 7 years of comics since then that all 'count'. That's like only having read VH1 to mid-1992.

I agree that it felt like VH1 because they used a lot of the same plot lines. But how do you explain things like Deadside and magic in 'the world outside our window' Because they don't really try to. Much more like Marvel/DC than VH1.

So, one of the things I did for VEI was research afterlives in voodoo mythology and the like. I'm not sure how much of what I put together they ended up using, though.

As for how to explain it, Deadside could be merely another plane not unlike the Faraway in VEI or Lost Land in VH-1, while the reason why the souls of the dead travel there remains unexplained (might be another piece of advanced technology like the Boon).

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

Would've been easier to say, 'yeah it's fantasy sci-fi with some pseudoscience explanations, just like Marvel and DC'.

[ManofTheAtom]

A retcon for who Ax killed is necessary for Bloodshot because the alternative is to pretend BS #51 didn't happen, which isn't really an option. Additionally, it resolves the plot hole of why his blood earned the moniker "Blood of Heroes" when no one else other than him used it.

In this instance, a retcon solves a problem, it doesn't create it.

Whatever floats your boat. Same can be said for other retcons from other peoples' POV.

Up to Stalinverse, and I'd say that, more than not, Dinesh adhered fairly well to the overall intent and spirit of VALIANT/VH-1.

Up to Stalinverse, so 2012-2017, the first 5 years. There's been 7 years of comics since then that all 'count'. That's like only having read VH1 to mid-1992.

I agree that it felt like VH1 because they used a lot of the same plot lines. But how do you explain things like Deadside and magic in 'the world outside our window' Because they don't really try to. Much more like Marvel/DC than VH1.

So, one of the things I did for VEI was research afterlives in voodoo mythology and the like. I'm not sure how much of what I put together they ended up using, though.

As for how to explain it, Deadside could be merely another plane not unlike the Faraway in VEI or Lost Land in VH-1, while the reason why the souls of the dead travel there remains unexplained (might be another piece of advanced technology like the Boon).

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

Would've been easier to say, 'yeah it's fantasy sci-fi with some pseudoscience explanations just like, Marvel and DC'.

It's not the same. Look at what it is said about Doctor Solar's Silver Age comics in the Second Death trade, and how badly they were written.

VALIANT put considerably far more effort on making things credible, while DC still relies on the same nonsensical logic as those comics did in the '60s.

[Ryan]

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

It's not the same. Look at what it is said about Doctor Solar's Silver Age comics in the Second Death trade, and how badly they were written.

VALIANT put considerably far more effort on making things credible, while DC still relies on the same nonsensical logic as those comics did in the '60s.

Magic being explained as "an advanced form of technology that we don't understand yet" is an extremely common trope used throughout all of sci-fi, including modern Marvel and DC. Nothing wrong with it, I like Fantasy sci-fi as much as the next guy.

But that explanation does nothing to distinguish VEI from modern Marvel or the MCU. I've never read much DC so I won't lump them in, as I don't know.

[ManofTheAtom]

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

It's not the same. Look at what it is said about Doctor Solar's Silver Age comics in the Second Death trade, and how badly they were written.

VALIANT put considerably far more effort on making things credible, while DC still relies on the same nonsensical logic as those comics did in the '60s.

Magic being explained as "an advanced form of technology that we don't understand yet" is an extremely common trope used throughout all of sci-fi, including modern Marvel and DC. Nothing wrong with it, I like Fantasy sci-fi as much as the next guy.

But that explanation does nothing to distinguish VEI from modern Marvel or the MCU. I've never read much DC so I won't lump them in, as I don't know.

There is an inherent distinction between sci-fi and science fiction, though.

Google Harlan Ellison's opinion on the matter.

DC and Marvel (and VH-2) lean toward the former, while VALIANT leaned toward the latter.

Or, better yet, in most cases VALIANT leaned more toward magic realism, like what is found in Guillermo Del Toro's work.

[Chiclo]

A retcon for who Ax killed is necessary for Bloodshot because the alternative is to pretend BS #51 didn't happen, which isn't really an option. Additionally, it resolves the plot hole of why his blood earned the moniker "Blood of Heroes" when no one else other than him used it.

In this instance, a retcon solves a problem, it doesn't create it.

Whatever floats your boat. Same can be said for other retcons from other peoples' POV.

Up to Stalinverse, and I'd say that, more than not, Dinesh adhered fairly well to the overall intent and spirit of VALIANT/VH-1.

Up to Stalinverse, so 2012-2017, the first 5 years. There's been 7 years of comics since then that all 'count'. That's like only having read VH1 to mid-1992.

I agree that it felt like VH1 because they used a lot of the same plot lines. But how do you explain things like Deadside and magic in 'the world outside our window' Because they don't really try to. Much more like Marvel/DC than VH1.

So, one of the things I did for VEI was research afterlives in voodoo mythology and the like. I'm not sure how much of what I put together they ended up using, though.

As for how to explain it, Deadside could be merely another plane not unlike the Faraway in VEI or Lost Land in VH-1, while the reason why the souls of the dead travel there remains unexplained (might be another piece of advanced technology like the Boon).

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

X-O Manowar has a magic energy sword too.

Perhaps it is worth differentiating mystic and magic? Mystical items or phenomena can have technical (I hesitate to say scientific) explanations whereas magic can be mystical but still unexplained by technical understanding? Something is mystic when a person or thing can wield power from a supernatural power or higher being (sapient or not), in the presence or absence of a technical explanation. Arthur’s third law as applied here would say that any mystical happening is assumed to have a technical explanation, even if the current limits of understanding do not include that technical explanation.

[ManofTheAtom]

X-O Manowar has a magic energy sword too.

In both cases, they are a form of advanced technology; Aric's is alien tech, while Rai's is human tech.

Perhaps it is worth differentiating mystic and magic? Mystical items or phenomena can have technical (I hesitate to say scientific) explanations whereas magic can be mystical but still unexplained by technical understanding? Something is mystic when a person or thing can wield power from a supernatural power or higher being (sapient or not), in the presence or absence of a technical explanation. Arthur’s third law as applied here would say that any mystical happening is assumed to have a technical explanation, even if the current limits of understanding do not include that technical explanation.

I look at something like Babylon 5, which showed that the longer a species survives and advances intellectually, both their technology and, even themselves, can evolve to the point of, respectively, becoming indistinguishable from magic and the divine.

It happened to the First Ones and, in time, to humans as seen in the final episode of the fourth season.

Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis covered similar ground with the Ancients/Lanteans.

I think the purpose of the law is to dismiss magic altogether as being a form of advanced technology no matter how undecipherable it may appear to be.

In both B5 and SG-1, modern-day humans eventually deciphered how to operate the seemingly-magical technology left behind by each series' respective ancient species.

The latter LITERALLY had Merlin in it, and even HIS magic was merely advanced technology...

[Chiclo]

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

It's not the same. Look at what it is said about Doctor Solar's Silver Age comics in the Second Death trade, and how badly they were written.

VALIANT put considerably far more effort on making things credible, while DC still relies on the same nonsensical logic as those comics did in the '60s.

Magic being explained as "an advanced form of technology that we don't understand yet" is an extremely common trope used throughout all of sci-fi, including modern Marvel and DC. Nothing wrong with it, I like Fantasy sci-fi as much as the next guy.

But that explanation does nothing to distinguish VEI from modern Marvel or the MCU. I've never read much DC so I won't lump them in, as I don't know.

1. Arthur C. Clarke’s third law says that any form of science, sufficiently advanced, resembles magic.

2. MotA cites Clarke’s third law frequently, saying that VALIANT can have no magic and anything resembling magic absolutely must have a technical explanation.

3. Clarke’s first law says that if a scientist says something might or could happen, it will. If a scientist says something cannot happen, it will and the more certain the scientist is that the thing cannot happen, the more certain is its happening.

4. What does Clarke’s first law tell us about MotA’s blanket dismissal of magic in VALIANT?

[Chiclo]

X-O Manowar has a magic energy sword too.

In both cases, they are a form of advanced technology; Aric's is alien tech, while Rai's is human tech.

Perhaps it is worth differentiating mystic and magic? Mystical items or phenomena can have technical (I hesitate to say scientific) explanations whereas magic can be mystical but still unexplained by technical understanding? Something is mystic when a person or thing can wield power from a supernatural power or higher being (sapient or not), in the presence or absence of a technical explanation. Arthur’s third law as applied here would say that any mystical happening is assumed to have a technical explanation, even if the current limits of understanding do not include that technical explanation.

I look at something like Babylon 5, which showed that the more a species survives and advances intellectually, both their technology and, even themselves, can evpñve to the point of, respectively, becoming indistinguishable from magic and the divine.

It happened to the First Ones and, in time, to humans as seen in the final episode of the fourth season.

Stargate SG-1 and Atlantis covered similar ground with the Ancients/Lanteans.

I think the purpose of the law is to dismiss magic altogether as being a form of advanced technology no matter how undecipherable it may appear to be.

In both B5 and SG-1, modern-day humans eventually deciphered how to operate the seemingly-magical technology left behind by each series' respective ancient species.

The latter LITERALLY had Merlin in it, and even HIS magic was merely advanced technology...

So what are you saying? That Deadside is maintained by a dozen Zathrases and the Great Machine?

Why do the rules of Babylon 5 or Stargate apply to Valiant? Does the Darque Power run on naquadah?

[ManofTheAtom]

So what are you saying? That Deadside is maintained by a dozen Zathrases and the Great Machine?

Why not?

Why do the rules of Babylon 5 or Stargate apply to Valiant? Does the Darque Power run on naquadah?

I'd say that the strict rules of science fiction that also apply to those others and other works apply to VALIANT, rather than the lax rules of sci-fi.

Those two cited works are science fiction whereas Star Wars is sci fi since it leans more toward fantasy.

As for Darque, that would be more akin to ascension in SG-1 than strictly about technology.

[ManofTheAtom]

The first issue of VEI's Shadowman directly addressed the fact that magic is merely an advanced form of technology. So, yeah, it could be "microcircuitry".

Look at Back to the Future 3 for a great example of how technology advances. It takes 1955 Doc Brown using an enormous box with bulbs to replicate what a Japanese microchip does, and it takes 1985 Doc Brown half a barn to replicate an ice machine.

Now look at Rai, whose advanced technology allows him to create energy swords.

It's not the same. Look at what it is said about Doctor Solar's Silver Age comics in the Second Death trade, and how badly they were written.

VALIANT put considerably far more effort on making things credible, while DC still relies on the same nonsensical logic as those comics did in the '60s.

Magic being explained as "an advanced form of technology that we don't understand yet" is an extremely common trope used throughout all of sci-fi, including modern Marvel and DC. Nothing wrong with it, I like Fantasy sci-fi as much as the next guy.

But that explanation does nothing to distinguish VEI from modern Marvel or the MCU. I've never read much DC so I won't lump them in, as I don't know.

1. Arthur C. Clarke’s third law says that any form of science, sufficiently advanced, resembles magic.

2. MotA cites Clarke’s third law frequently, saying that VALIANT can have no magic and anything resembling magic absolutely must have a technical explanation.

3. Clarke’s first law says that if a scientist says something might or could happen, it will. If a scientist says something cannot happen, it will and the more certain the scientist is that the thing cannot happen, the more certain is its happening.

4. What does Clarke’s first law tell us about MotA’s blanket dismissal of magic in VALIANT?

The first law does not negate the third, though.

How does the thing that the scientist says cannot happen happen? Magic. And what is magic? Advanced technology...

[Ryan]

There is an inherent distinction between sci-fi and science fiction, though.

Google Harlan Ellison's opinion on the matter.

DC and Marvel (and VH-2) lean toward the former, while VALIANT leaned toward the latter.

Or, better yet, in most cases VALIANT leaned more toward magic realism, like what is found in Guillermo Del Toro's work.

So you're re-defining the terms here. In general parlance, sci-fi is just an abbreviation for science fiction, and that's how I've been using it. When I refer to a stricter, more science-based science fiction, I use the term hard sci-fi. Those are generally accepted definitions.

I get what you mean though. I would argue post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI all lean more towards fantasy sci-fi (or sci-fi how you're using it), while pre-Unity VH1, New Universe, and Broadway all lean more towards hard sci-fi (or science fiction how you've defined it).

Which make those 3 (post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI) much more similar to Marvel and the MCU. To circle back.

[ManofTheAtom]

There is an inherent distinction between sci-fi and science fiction, though.

Google Harlan Ellison's opinion on the matter.

DC and Marvel (and VH-2) lean toward the former, while VALIANT leaned toward the latter.

Or, better yet, in most cases VALIANT leaned more toward magic realism, like what is found in Guillermo Del Toro's work.

So you're re-defining the terms here. In general parlance, sci-fi is just an abbreviation for science fiction, and that's how I've been using it. When I refer to a stricter, more science-based science fiction, I use the term hard sci-fi. Those are generally accepted definitions.

I get what you mean though. I would argue post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI all lean more towards fantasy sci-fi (or sci-fi how you're using it), while pre-Unity VH1, New Universe, and Broadway all lean more towards hard sci-fi (or science fiction how you've defined it).

Not necessarily MY definitions, though. They are a distinction authors like Ellison have drawn over the years.

[ManofTheAtom]

Which make those 3 (post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI) much more similar to Marvel and the MCU. To circle back.

Not sure about VEI, though.

[Ryan]

There is an inherent distinction between sci-fi and science fiction, though.

Google Harlan Ellison's opinion on the matter.

DC and Marvel (and VH-2) lean toward the former, while VALIANT leaned toward the latter.

Or, better yet, in most cases VALIANT leaned more toward magic realism, like what is found in Guillermo Del Toro's work.

So you're re-defining the terms here. In general parlance, sci-fi is just an abbreviation for science fiction, and that's how I've been using it. When I refer to a stricter, more science-based science fiction, I use the term hard sci-fi. Those are generally accepted definitions.

I get what you mean though. I would argue post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI all lean more towards fantasy sci-fi (or sci-fi how you're using it), while pre-Unity VH1, New Universe, and Broadway all lean more towards hard sci-fi (or science fiction how you've defined it).

Not necessarily MY definitions, though. They are a distinction authors like Ellison have drawn over the years.

Cool, I got that. I'm clarifying because that's not how I've been using the terms. I'm using sci-fi as an abbreviation for science fiction because it's faster to type, not as 2 distinct subgenres of fiction. Which is also a widely accepted way to use those terms.

[Ryan]

Which make those 3 (post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI) much more similar to Marvel and the MCU. To circle back.

Not sure about VEI, though.

K, but even if the early VEI could be considered hard sci-fi (which I don't agree with), VEI canon now includes everything from DMG and Alien. So you're prepared to say everything that's been published as VEI canon falls into the stricter category of hard sci-fi (aka science fiction) even though you haven't read it?

[ManofTheAtom]

Which make those 3 (post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI) much more similar to Marvel and the MCU. To circle back.

Not sure about VEI, though.

K, but even if the early VEI could be considered hard sci-fi (which I don't agree with), VEI canon now includes everything from DMG and Alien. So you're prepared to say everything that's been published as VEI canon falls into the stricter category of hard sci-fi (aka science fiction) even though you haven't read it?

It does include it, just like VH 1 canon includes Pre Unity, Post Unity, and Birthquake.

They are all parts of their respective canons.

It may not all fall into the category of hard sci-fi/science fiction. What doesn't, what creates a contradiction, should be explained, not glossed over.

[ManofTheAtom]

There is an inherent distinction between sci-fi and science fiction, though.

Google Harlan Ellison's opinion on the matter.

DC and Marvel (and VH-2) lean toward the former, while VALIANT leaned toward the latter.

Or, better yet, in most cases VALIANT leaned more toward magic realism, like what is found in Guillermo Del Toro's work.

So you're re-defining the terms here. In general parlance, sci-fi is just an abbreviation for science fiction, and that's how I've been using it. When I refer to a stricter, more science-based science fiction, I use the term hard sci-fi. Those are generally accepted definitions.

I get what you mean though. I would argue post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI all lean more towards fantasy sci-fi (or sci-fi how you're using it), while pre-Unity VH1, New Universe, and Broadway all lean more towards hard sci-fi (or science fiction how you've defined it).

Not necessarily MY definitions, though. They are a distinction authors like Ellison have drawn over the years.

Cool, I got that. I'm clarifying because that's not how I've been using the terms. I'm using sci-fi as an abbreviation for science fiction because it's faster to type, not as 2 distinct subgenres of fiction. Which is also a widely accepted way to use those terms.

I'd say they are acceptable as shorthand until their definition becomes part of the conversation, heh.

[ManofTheAtom]

A great example of *SQUEE* Marvel writing that glosses over things rather that addresses them is Garth Ennis' Punisher, which entirely ignored Frank's return to Earth from Hell after he was executed in the electric chair.

[Ryan]

Which make those 3 (post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI) much more similar to Marvel and the MCU. To circle back.

Not sure about VEI, though.

K, but even if the early VEI could be considered hard sci-fi (which I don't agree with), VEI canon now includes everything from DMG and Alien. So you're prepared to say everything that's been published as VEI canon falls into the stricter category of hard sci-fi (aka science fiction) even though you haven't read it?

It does include it, just like VH 1 canon includes Pre Unity, Post Unity, and Birthquake.

They are all parts of their respective canons.

It may not all fall into the category of hard sci-fi/science fiction. What doesn't, what creates a contradiction, should be explained, not glossed over.

Ok, then you better get all those DMG books so you can start explaining how all the contradictions of the earlier VEI books can fit together in a realistic way, or they might be glossed over. Get ready to bust out a bunch of VR machines and Wish Machines, it's a messy one

[Ryan]

A great example of *SQUEE* Marvel writing that glosses over things rather that addresses them is Garth Ennis' Punisher, which entirely ignored Frank's return to Earth from Hell after he was executed in the electric chair.

Marvel is a huge mess, to try to make sense of all 60 years of comics taking place in the same continuity would be impossible.

[Ryan]

I'd say they are acceptable as shorthand until their definition becomes part of the conversation, heh.

K I can accept your definitions for sake of the conversation.

[ManofTheAtom]

I'd say they are acceptable as shorthand until their definition becomes part of the conversation, heh.

K I can accept your definitions for sake of the conversation.

[ManofTheAtom]

Which make those 3 (post-Unity VH1, VH2, and VEI) much more similar to Marvel and the MCU. To circle back.

Not sure about VEI, though.

K, but even if the early VEI could be considered hard sci-fi (which I don't agree with), VEI canon now includes everything from DMG and Alien. So you're prepared to say everything that's been published as VEI canon falls into the stricter category of hard sci-fi (aka science fiction) even though you haven't read it?

It does include it, just like VH 1 canon includes Pre Unity, Post Unity, and Birthquake.

They are all parts of their respective canons.

It may not all fall into the category of hard sci-fi/science fiction. What doesn't, what creates a contradiction, should be explained, not glossed over.

Ok, then you better get all those DMG books so you can start explaining how all the contradictions of the earlier VEI books can fit together in a realistic way, or they might be glossed over. Get ready to bust out a bunch of VR machines and Wish Machines, it's a messy one

I'd love that job...